This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should governments globally be implementing population control measures?
The UN report issued in 2004 on the projected population growth predicted that world population growth would reach 12 billion by 2050. This is also the predicted capacity for the worlds resources and liveable land area.
What do we do after this point?
If we continue at the current growth rate of 2.05 children per woman then by 2300 there will be an unimaginable 134 trillion on this planet.
What's the solution?
With healthcare developing and people living longer where do we draw the line?
Nikolas Etzold
Let's just hope we adapt quickly enough to delay this scenario much much longer. And as some people have already suggested colonizing space might help a great deal. I would much rather spend my golden years on Mars than fighting for survival ;)
Edit: all that doomsday-talk made me forget the actual question. Population control is tricky. In china for example it lead to a selection towards male-offspring through the abortion of many female fetuses, since women are generally not expected to be able to support their parents when they grow old. Similar developments could take place elsewhere. It might work, but it shouldn't be the first choice because of this risk
Krisztián Pintér 200+
one more note: don't you feel some contradiction between "War, starvation, dehydration" and "Why should we"?
Nikolas Etzold
When the population reaches a point at which its - or a big parts - basic needs for survival can not be met anymore, then there will be "war, starvation, dehydration". The actual number of people we talk about depends on the level of technologie and therefore to which degree we make use of resources (wastefulness or efficiency). But technological progress might at some point not be fast enough, so we could experience a catastrophe like the one mentioned by me before.
I watched that talk when it first came out, but I must admit, had completely forgotten about it by now.
I made similar assumptions about population growth, but simply didn't think something like that was possible. homo hominis lupus est (as I said when I am being pessimistic it worsens my mood and I get even more pessimistic. not actually a strength of mine, but I try working on it)
So my solution to delay such an effect was simply better technologie to use resources and maybe expand the habitat of our species beyond our planet.
And as for the "why should we"-statement: I meant to say, that all resources can be recycled except for fissionable materials, which would be stupid to begin with. No connection between that and "war, starvation..." intended. While we are at it let's get rid of all the nuclear waste we have and finally be done with Uranium-powered reactors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor ) ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 )
Thomas Anderson
Also, if we stop burning stuff and releasing heat into space, we have plenty of time and resources to work together to find and populate another planet as well. If someone wants to have 20 children, why not? If they have the skill to manage their family without hurting others or creating additional suffering, the more the merrier.
I am not sure about the 134 trillion people...perhaps over a few planets...that would be awesome.
Jamie Barnes
I forget the exact numbers but it’s something like 20% of the world has 80% of the wealth / resources. This first class world has forever exploited developing countries since acquiring these resources, and with the use of these resources has come technology, which has allowed the ability for further exploitation. This is why our TV's are cheap and our landfills are full.
If you look closely at this, you will undoubtedly realise that there’s disproportion of resource sharing, always has been, and I propose, there always will be. I for a long time have held the belief that the population explosion won’t occur on the scale so many people predict. Reason being is because Net growth is Births minus Deaths. Some of the fastest developing countries begin exponential growth even amidst poverty, but then experience huge mortality rates and numbers diminish again, why?..... Resources. They either don’t have them, or don’t have what’s required to make use of them.
For these developing nations to substantially contribute to long term population growth, they have to be stable and they must undergo Demographic Transition. The reason why today’s developed nations are so well developed is because they have already done this. They were able to do this a long time ago, because they had unthreatened resource access, they had the time, and they had the stability to do so without competition. Now the Western World enjoys slower growth rates as it has come off the exponential ramp of growth where the resources were essential to enable it to happen.
If what I’m saying holds true, there’s no need for population control measures, they’re essentially already happening in the realm of resource control. Like I said, a country can’t develop without them, and those countries in question, essentially, don’t have them if we behave in such a fashion to make them our own.
Aindreas Kugler
But 134 trillion would be nearly 1000 people per sqare kilometer on the whole planet (only land). A coconut falling from a tree would have a fair chance of hitting someone. A natural disaster could wipe out trillions, such as yellowstone erupting etc. A disease would spread quicker than it is spotted. In other words, I think natural disastes and diseases, and our own quest for war, would create a limit to the amount of people on this planet, kind of like terminal velocity. Now if humanity had technology to stop those disasters, then I dont think we would be worried about little things like food.
Anne Dagen 10+
Gerald O'brian 50+
The year 2300 is in 289 years. Your prophecies are worthless, unless you take scientific solutions into account.
289 years ago that's 1722 !!!
You could've said in 1722 that 7 billion people could not survive on our planet's limited ressource. The land for farming was insufficient, the forests were insufficient for providing fuel, or the population density would favour an ultimate pandemic.
Not only do I believe that our planet can hold 134 trillion people, with the right amount of knowledge, but I also believe that we unlimited ressources from our vast universe and that the future of people is not limited to Earth.
What's the solution? you ask.
Science.
Jonathan Chu
Gerald O'brian 50+
Scientific progress is constant in societies that allow it to happen. But this is a brand new feature for humanity, so it's only been going on steadily since a few centuries ago.
I don't know if we'll have solved every important issue by the year 2300, but saying that we won't is a weird statement that requires an explanation.
Jonathan Chu
Gerald O'brian 50+
I also agree that it's not easy to put a figure on scientific progression. But still, one can mesure growth of knowledge through technology. Computers and phones are easy examples of exponencial growth in functionality.
Jesse Davey
I agree with you Gerald, though when you say wealth, I hope you don't mean financial wealth..
Krisztián Pintér 200+